4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
on finding them.
As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
the evidence.
I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
committed the assassination alone and unaided.
From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
arguing for a conspiracy.
One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
(he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
as well.
Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
shooter above and behind?"
He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
nonsense.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:18:59?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:which Connally would have to have been holding his hand for the entry wound to be on the dorsal aspect. Probably the Secret Service did not, as I suspected, attempt to change the bullet direction. It probably was a result of the two doctors saying
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:11:40?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:40:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
The contradictions in the wrist wound evidence seem to be based in a disagreement in judgement between Drs. Gregory and Shaw. Shaw said, assuming that one bullet did all the damage, that he could not comfortably hold his own hand in the position inOn Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:25:48?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>>>> That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.Yes, I saw it all. It has two copies of the same SS document. It doesn't have the other one. And it doesn't have the Parkland Hospital document. I seem to have a more complete version of this material.
There's more to it. It starts here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=2
Shaw thought the entry was on the palm side and Gregory thought it was on the opposite side. Obviously, they could not both
be correct so the issue had to be resolved. Since Gregory was the one who operated on the wrist wounds, Shaw deferred to
his judgement about that. It is no more complicated than that. The WC was totally transparent regarding this issue. They
reported the disagreement in their report and they made available both diagrams. Why is this even an issue?
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:56:42?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to be
On or about January 28, 1964, Drs. Shires, Gregory and Shaw were interviewed by Special Agent Roger Warner of the USSS. Warner had them mark on a diagram Governor Connally's wounds. That diagram is on page 6 of Commission Document 326. And shows anentry wound on the dorsal side of the right wrist and an exit wound on the palm side.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6It was during this testimony that Dr. Gregory was shown Commission Exhibit 679, which showed the wrist wounds REVERSED and to which he noted. ( 4 H 126 ) He was then asked to make the corrections to the diagram, which he did and initialed.
THOSE MARKINGS WERE MADE BY THE DOCTORS.
Two months later, in March, Dr. Gregory confimed that fact, testifying that the bullet, "had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect". ( 6 H 98 )
A month later, in April, Dr. Gregory appeared to give testimony and once again, confirmed that the bullet had, "passed from the dorsal side or back side to the volar". ( 4 H 119 ) Once again explaining that the "volar" side was the palm side. ( ibid. )
The point is that the Commission published as Exhibit 679 the diagram with the WRONG markings on the wrist, markings that they themselves had already printed on the form before Dr. Gregory affirmed them, markings that showed the wrist wounds in theREVERSE order. They HAD the "rough diagram" that the doctors had marked with the correct markings ( CD 326, pg. 6 ), but chose to instead suppress that as a Commission Document and publish the diagram with the wrong printed markings ( CE 679 ) albeit
I asked Hank why would they publish the document with the wrong orientation and correction ( CE 679 ) when they had a diagram with the correct orientation ( CD 326, pg. 6 ) and his answer was that CE 679 had been corrected.for his feeble mind. How does one make admissable, and accept as an Exhibit, a diagram that identifies the wounds before the identifications are confirmed ?
In other words, he didn't answer my question, as usual.
He went on babbling about what was admissable and what was not.
I would have like to have asked him how the Commission could have made admissable a diagram that showed the wrist wounds in REVERSE ( it was already designated as an exhibit when it was shown to Dr. Gregory, 4 H 126 ), but I was afraid it was too much
I think someone was trying to pull a fast one here, but it didn't get past Dr. Gregory. He caught it.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:45:29?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:which Connally would have to have been holding his hand for the entry wound to be on the dorsal aspect. Probably the Secret Service did not, as I suspected, attempt to change the bullet direction. It probably was a result of the two doctors saying
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:37:13?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:18:59?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:11:40?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:40:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:25:48?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
The contradictions in the wrist wound evidence seem to be based in a disagreement in judgement between Drs. Gregory and Shaw. Shaw said, assuming that one bullet did all the damage, that he could not comfortably hold his own hand in the position inYes, I saw it all. It has two copies of the same SS document. It doesn't have the other one. And it doesn't have the Parkland Hospital document. I seem to have a more complete version of this material.That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.There's more to it. It starts here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=2
Shaw thought the entry was on the palm side and Gregory thought it was on the opposite side. Obviously, they could not bothYou're too stupid to understand anything, but it's very cute that you try!
be correct so the issue had to be resolved. Since Gregory was the one who operated on the wrist wounds, Shaw deferred to
his judgement about that. It is no more complicated than that. The WC was totally transparent regarding this issue. They
reported the disagreement in their report and they made available both diagrams. Why is this even an issue?
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:36:45?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common thread
with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
can't tell us why the anomaly is significant.
The man is correct. You're too stupid to understand and you always have to have everything explained to you, so here it is.
Because we're talking about opposite ends of the wrist, the identifications of the wounds are significant because they determine the direction from which the shot that hit the wrist was fired.
If the entry wound was on the dorsal side, it was from one direction, if it was on the palm side, the shot came from the opposite direction.
I really don't know why you couldn't understand that.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:56:01?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:be done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:56:42?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to
entry wound on the dorsal side of the right wrist and an exit wound on the palm side.On or about January 28, 1964, Drs. Shires, Gregory and Shaw were interviewed by Special Agent Roger Warner of the USSS. Warner had them mark on a diagram Governor Connally's wounds. That diagram is on page 6 of Commission Document 326. And shows an
It was during this testimony that Dr. Gregory was shown Commission Exhibit 679, which showed the wrist wounds REVERSED and to which he noted. ( 4 H 126 ) He was then asked to make the corrections to the diagram, which he did and initialed.https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6
THOSE MARKINGS WERE MADE BY THE DOCTORS.
Two months later, in March, Dr. Gregory confimed that fact, testifying that the bullet, "had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect". ( 6 H 98 )
A month later, in April, Dr. Gregory appeared to give testimony and once again, confirmed that the bullet had, "passed from the dorsal side or back side to the volar". ( 4 H 119 ) Once again explaining that the "volar" side was the palm side. ( ibid. )
REVERSE order. They HAD the "rough diagram" that the doctors had marked with the correct markings ( CD 326, pg. 6 ), but chose to instead suppress that as a Commission Document and publish the diagram with the wrong printed markings ( CE 679 ) albeit
The point is that the Commission published as Exhibit 679 the diagram with the WRONG markings on the wrist, markings that they themselves had already printed on the form before Dr. Gregory affirmed them, markings that showed the wrist wounds in the
for his feeble mind. How does one make admissable, and accept as an Exhibit, a diagram that identifies the wounds before the identifications are confirmed ?
I asked Hank why would they publish the document with the wrong orientation and correction ( CE 679 ) when they had a diagram with the correct orientation ( CD 326, pg. 6 ) and his answer was that CE 679 had been corrected.
In other words, he didn't answer my question, as usual.
He went on babbling about what was admissable and what was not.
I would have like to have asked him how the Commission could have made admissable a diagram that showed the wrist wounds in REVERSE ( it was already designated as an exhibit when it was shown to Dr. Gregory, 4 H 126 ), but I was afraid it was too much
I think someone was trying to pull a fast one here, but it didn't get past Dr. Gregory. He caught it.
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:10:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:36:45?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common threadThe man is correct. You're too stupid to understand and you always have to have everything explained to you, so here it is.
with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
can't tell us why the anomaly is significant.
It is the burden of those who think these things are significant to explain why they are significant.
Because we're talking about opposite ends of the wrist, the identifications of the wounds are significant because they determine the direction from which the shot that hit the wrist was fired.
Now tell us why it is significant that Shaw's initial opinion was different from Gregory's and that Shaw later changed
his mind.
If the entry wound was on the dorsal side, it was from one direction, if it was on the palm side, the shot came from the opposite direction.
I really don't know why you couldn't understand that.
The entry side doesn't tell us which direction the shot came from...
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it, severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.
Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
No one's ever said that before.
Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time. He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under
All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.
Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:58:57?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:14:58?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.One thing they don't want to understand is that when Connally reacts to the shot that hits him, his wrist is nowhere near below his right nipple.
In fact, it's visible above the top of the limo door.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z236.png
Right, Gil. He suddenly flipped his right arm upward in anticipation of being shot. Why would anybody believe that the arm
flip was a reflexive response to being shot through the wrist. Your version makes much more sense. <chuckle
Add to that that the victims' reactions were 10 Z-frames ( .546 seconds ) apart, it means that the same bullet travelling at 2165 ft/sec hitting both victims would have required them to be seated 1,182.09 feet apart.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/z226-236-comparison.png
Even if the bullet had lost more than half it's velocity when it hit Connally, and it hit him at say, 1,000 ft/sec., they still would have had to have been sitting 546 feet apart.
Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
At 100 feet/sec., they would have had to bee 54.6 feet apart.
IOW, there's no way in hell these men were hit by the same bullet.
When you start with an incorrect premise, an incorrect conclusion is inevitable.
Both the FBI and the Secret Sevice knew this and that's why they both concluded that separate bullets hit the President and Governor Connally.
That was the initial belief by everybody.
The SBT was figured out months after the FBI made their report.
It is understandable
why the initial belief was they were hit by separate shots. JFK was hit twice and JBC was hit once and the evidence indicated
three shots were fired. It was only after closely examining the Z-film they saw that the two men were hit at the same time
which would indicate they were probably hit by the same bullet. The further discovered that at the time JFK was first hit, he
and JBC were in a direct line with the sniper's nest. A bullet exiting JFK's throat would have hit JBC.
But again, they don't WANT to understand that.
4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
on finding them.
Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
that conspirators would be found in the testimony.
And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he >*should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the >eyewitnesses.
As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
the evidence.
Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples. I'm quite sure
that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.
And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
"conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.
I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And he'll so so again...
I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
committed the assassination alone and unaided.
Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
remain silent when Corbutt denies it. You're aware of the evidence
for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.
Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.
From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
arguing for a conspiracy.
So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
we can make sure you're not simply lying again.
Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
afraid to let others examine it.
But, of course, you won't.
One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
(he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
as well.
Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
Lifton on the direction of the shots.
But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...
Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
shooter above and behind?"
Surely you don't expect people to believe you?
He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
nonsense.
So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."
You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the
way through. Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
"nonsense?"
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 3:46:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.No one's ever said that before.
You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots. >> No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to
being shot at that frame.
I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's ...
Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
It proves no such thing.
severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it,
You seem oblivious ...
All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
That would be significant if...
Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.
So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.
Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness ...
It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
perfectly with that conclusion.
And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:13:37?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
I deny that both men were hit by the same shot. Whether it was 224, 225 or 226. Doesn't matter.
Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to being shot at that frame.
That wasn't the question.
The question was whether you see both men raise their arms at Z226. You lack the guts to deal
with that. If you denied it...
Let me understand this: you're saying that a bullet allegedly travelling in a downward path forced Connally's arm to move upward ?
Yes, that's how reflexive responses work.
I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior toAnd Connally's movement could only have been caused by a bullet ? Prove it.
seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality. >> Well, if an expert like David Von Pein says it, it must be true.
The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
that is what happened.
I am willing to entertain a plausible alternative explanation for why JBC suddenly flipped his arm rapidly upward just two
frames after we see his coat bulge outward. Do you have any such explanation.
Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can see that Connally isn't expressing any pain at Z-230.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
There's no reason to believe...
It certainly does.Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.It proves no such thing.
No...
Even Connally testified that he wasn't struck before Z-231. His testimony was that he was hit between Z231 and Z 234. ( 4 H 145 )
Totally consistent with his reaction at Z-236.
Connally was wrong.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.pngYou are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.
Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
Connally was wrong.
That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he hadNellie Connally DID see the President after he was hit and testified that they were hit by separate shots.
no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_147-nellie.gif
Nellie thought JFK clutched his throat. The Z-film shows that never happened. Hardly the best witness available.
What do you men, "looking through two SS agents", was he standing in the street, or positioned up on the elevated overpass looking down into the car ?Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
Elm Street goes downward in order to go under the overpass. The overpass isn't much above where the limo was when JFK
was first shot. The triple underpass was constructed in 1936. Prior to that time, Elm, Main, and Commerce streets crosse
the railroad tracks at grade which was at the same level as Houston St. At the time of the single bullet, the limo had only
gone slightly downgrade from Houston.
You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they223, 224, 225, 226, who gives a shit ? You're saying that they both react to a shot at 226 but you haven't PROVEN it.
reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?
You've posted no citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos, no photographs, no links......NOTHING to support your position.
Only your own opinions and observations.
NO PROOF, as usual.
DVP has produced this video...
I'd love to see your explanation that takes into account all these observable facts but I know I won't because you don't have
one.
Your own Warren Commission was quite clear that there was no identical reaction by both men.
It blamed the difference in their reaction times as a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=136&search=%22delayed_reaction%22
You can't even understand your own cites. The page you have cited does not say anything about JFK and JBC reacting at
the same time.
They are dealing with whether it was theoretically possible for JBC to have been hit by the first shot when he
believed he was hit by the second shot. It doesn't even address whether both could have been hit by the second shot.
That is
dealt with elsewhere. The WC never came to a conclusion as to whether the single bullet was the first or second shot. They
allowed either was possible. The delayed reaction was only necessary to explain a first shot single bullet.
Based on what we have learned since 1964, we can safely dismiss that >possibility and therefore it is not necessary to consider that JBC had a >delayed reaction.
But Dr. Shaw disagreed:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/shaw-gov-reaction-immediate.mp4
Now you're saying that they both weren't hit at the same time ?Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?
Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the singleThe Commission reported that "the PRESIDENT was PROBABLY shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225" ( Report, pg. 105 )
bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
perfectly with that conclusion.
But the evidence shows that Connally wasn't hit until after frame 231.
The evidence shows no such thing...
It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact.
It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
wrong.
I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance.What David Von Pein and you think you see in the Zapruder film against an eyewitness who was present and whose account is corroborated by other witnesses ?
Absolutely...
ROFLMAO
I have news for you and David Von Pein:
Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of John Connally.
Yes it does. My observation is based on a factual viewing of the Z-film using modern enhancement technologies.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of Nellie Connally.
Yes it does.
My observation is based on a factual viewing ...
Your "observation" doesn't trump the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. Robert Shaw.
Yes it does...
Your "observation" doesn't trump the accounts of eyewitnesses who were present during the assassination and whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses.
Yes it does...
Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the Warren Commission that there was no identical reaction by both men.
Quote the WC saying that.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the FBI that both men were hit by separate bullets.
Yes it does...
Your observation doesn't trump Hoover telling LBJ that both men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
Yes it does ...
You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
What we observe is evidence
They're opinions and nothing more.
You won't even address the facts.
You refuse to...
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:45:05?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< a lot of his usual boring commentary and insults >
<yawn>
Oh Look, the Villiage Idiot has another opinion.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
Don't call me a liar because, unlike you, I can prove which one of us is lying.
You posted:
"I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/bvWyjGQbAgAJ
From Von Pein's Blog:
"The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously --with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his
right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399."
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
You got the idea from Von Pein's website and you're claiming it as your own "observation".
You posted:
"I'll gladly put MY observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance."
YOUR observation, really ?
You mean Von Pein's observation that you happen to agree with.
Even the lowest scum of the earth give credit where credit is due. Ask Bud and Chuckles.
It wasn't until I kept pressing you that you were the only one who thought that, that you finally came clean and admitted you got it from someplace else.
You're a real piece of work. And that's putting it nicely.
The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't. >Between the two of us, that makes YOU the liar.
Again.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:25:18?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
on finding them.
Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
that conspirators would be found in the testimony.
You'd snip it.
And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
*should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
eyewitnesses.
As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
the evidence.
Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples.
I'm quite sure
that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.
And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
"conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.
Then if there isn't a disconnect...
I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And he'll so so again...
I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
committed the assassination alone and unaided.
Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
remain silent when Corbutt denies it.
There is no evidence for something this silly.
You're aware of the evidence
for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.
There is no evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll.
The acoustics evidence from the HSCA report was trashed decades ago...
Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.
From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
arguing for a conspiracy.
So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
we can make sure you're not simply lying again.
Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
afraid to let others examine it.
But, of course, you won't.
He has.
One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
(he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
as well.
Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
Lifton on the direction of the shots.
Shifting the Burden.
But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...
Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
shooter above and behind?"
Surely you don't expect people to believe you?
I believe him.
He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
nonsense.
So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."
The working hypothesis is called the person or persons making the extraordinary claim need to carry the burden of providing proof for
the claim and to not shift that burden to others.
You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the
way through.
Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
"nonsense?"
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:23:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:56:48?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Ouch! What a spanking!!
Corbutt's running for his safe place to cry in private...
No one ever spanked him for lying when he was a kid, so I guess it's up to you and me.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:57:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim. I cited DVP as a source. His website allows us to toggle between
frames. Toggling between Z223-224 shows us JBC's jacket suddenly bulge outward, indicating that is the time frame
the bullet struck. Toggling between Z224-225 shows us JFK's right arm was still moving downward between those frames,
indicating that although he had just been struck by the bullet, his reflexive action had not yet begun. Toggling between
Z225-226 shows us that is when JFK's reflexive raising of his arms began at Z226, the same frame JBC's reflexive flipping
of his right arm upward began. You won't address any of these facts because you know they are powerful evidence of the
validity of the SBT. Instead you obfuscate by diverting to far less reliable indicators of what happened.
Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.What we observe is evidence and you refuse to address or even acknowledge what the video evidence clearly shows.
They're opinions and nothing more.You won't even address the facts. If you deny what I have observed is factual, tell us which frame JFK's arms start moving
upward. Tell us which frame JBC's right arm starts moving upward. You won't answer either question because you lack the
guts to do so.
As I predicted...
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:00:57?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Except he mistakes them for facts...
I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
ROFLMAO
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:53:16?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Don't call me a liar because, unlike you, I can prove which one of us is lying.You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
You posted:
"I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/bvWyjGQbAgAJ >>
From Von Pein's Blog:
"The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously --with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his
right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399."
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
You got the idea from Von Pein's website and you're claiming it as your own "observation".
The observation is mine.
You posted:The observation is mine.
"I'll gladly put MY observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance."
YOUR observation, really ?
You mean Von Pein's observation that you happen to agree with.
No...
Even the lowest scum of the earth give credit where credit is due. Ask Bud and Chuckles.
When have I failed to credit DVP when citing website?
It wasn't until I kept pressing you that you were the only one who thought that, that you finally came clean and admitted you got it from someplace else.
You are pathetically...
You're a real piece of work. And that's putting it nicely.
It is not my fault...
The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't.
Between the two of us, that makes YOU the liar.
Again.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:00:57?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Except he mistakes them for facts...I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
You need corroborating evidence for something you can see with your own eyes? Clueless as ever.
I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
Your lying again, Gil.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
wrong.
believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.
Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong.
Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.
The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong.
The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.
The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.
The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.
The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.
The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.
The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong. >The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.
The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.
The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.
The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.
John Connally was wrong.
Nellie Connally was wrong.
Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.
The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.
The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.
The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.
The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.
Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.
Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:13:33?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Yup.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE CorbettBuell Wesley Frazier was wrong.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
wrong.
believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.
Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.Yup.
The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong. >Either that or most of the witnesses who said there were only three were wrong.Oh, they might have seen smoke. It just wasn't gunsmoke.
The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.
The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.Yup.
The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.No. There is no doubt the limo slowed down.
The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.They were wrong...
The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.No.
The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong. >Yup. They admitted they were wrong.No. He was right. He couldn't positively identify the shells because one spent shell looks pretty much like all other shells of
The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.
the same caliber. Explain what unique features a spent shell would have that would distinguish it from others.
The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.Yup.
The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.Wrong about what?
The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.Yup.
John Connally was wrong.Wrong...
Nellie Connally was wrong.About lots of things.
Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.Yup.
The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.Like the shells...
The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.No....
The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.Probably.
The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.No. Jack Ruby was friends with lots of cops. Some hung out at his club.
Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.They were able to get the right guy because forensic evidence is far more reliable than eyewitness testimony and all of that
pointed to Oswald and nobody else.
The forensic evidence told the investigators what the witnesses got right and what the
witnesses got wrong.
Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.
Not remarkable at all. That's why they were able to solve it in about 12 hours. When you have the murder weapon, matching
shells and bullets, ownership of the murder weapon established, owner's palm print on the murder weapon, fibers matching
his shirt on the murder weapon, and the owner's fingerprints at the location where the shooter was seen, it doesn't take
Columbo to figure it out. Then when that same prime suspect guns down a cop 45 minutes later, even Inspector Clouseau
could figure it out. That's why we're so baffled as to why you can't.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.Your lying again, Gil.
He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
Really ? Here's just a few:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DnykKCzNUB0/m/Z6x8d_aVAwAJ >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uki0CzP23cU/m/s9gUlyfTCQAJ >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AfVDpVtDnEE/m/urPNcP1zAQAJ >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OPx_euCKrr4/m/24oNDou_MQoJ >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2cpHEpvOgu8/m/DSHUIxsUAwAJ
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:52:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.Your lying again, Gil.
He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
Why did you cut out the statement that followed which gave context to what you are lying about? Oh, that's right. You did it
because you are a devious liar. Never mind.
He makes his argument and shows the film record of the event that
supports his argument. He doesn't need to cite other writers when
he can lay his cards on the table for all to see.
Really ? Here's just a few:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DnykKCzNUB0/m/Z6x8d_aVAwAJ >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uki0CzP23cU/m/s9gUlyfTCQAJ >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AfVDpVtDnEE/m/urPNcP1zAQAJ >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OPx_euCKrr4/m/24oNDou_MQoJ >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2cpHEpvOgu8/m/DSHUIxsUAwAJ
You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:46:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence. >> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.
We both pointed out how you look at things incorrectly.
It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 9:46:39?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.
It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.
Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 10:30:50?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:44:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Called it!
You are ridiculing my arguments, not me.
I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:02:27?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:50:34?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:46:11?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33?AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
You are ridiculing my arguments, not me. That’s a logical fallacy, and doesn't touch what I said at all.You should. I am ridiculing you. And drawing parallels while I do it.I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule."I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."
I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
And I note that Ben, NoTrueFlags, and now you are staying as far away from discussing the ramifications of Lifton's theory as possible.
You'd rather employ logical fallacies than actually address a theory many CTs accept.
Explain that too, while you're explaining how Lifton’s theory makes any sense:
Doesn't need to. Only one shooter needs to be in front of the limousine.
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:05:09?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:49:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 10:30:50?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:What you "called" is your own proven cowardice...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:44:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, >>>> and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Called it!
I really wish Henry would stop spamming this thread. I'm trying to
read the new book I just bought, "If I Did It" by Allen Dulles.
Foreword by Arlen Specter.
But no CT wants to discuss Lifton’s theory here.
Clearly, you see a problem with Lifton’s theory...
This is exactly what Arlen Specter did, but in reverse.
Why are you more interested in trotting out logical fallacy
tutorials rather than address the points I made?
Another red herring logical fallacy.
I did address them...
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 6:43:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:...
I don't.
Your opinion has no value.
When are you going to put that "scalding" evidence together into a cohesive package explaining this event?
What uncomfortable subjects am I avoiding?
Please, spell it out. In detail. Let's discuss.
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 7:38:48?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Your opinion has no value.
I've been telling them that for years. They think their opinions, comments, "reasoning", speculation and other nonsesne is more significant than the evidence.
They come in here with the intent of making fools out of people who they don't agree with and only end up making fools out of themselves.reasonable and prudent person would have done before losing his shit and accusing the poster of faking the document.
Hanky thinks he knows more than everybody else. He doesn't even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and a Commission Document.
Look how he flipped out accusing another poster of faking a Commission Exhibit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MHfcJKB_IqU/m/1JKDDJshAQAJ
It ends up the poster cited a Commission Document, not a Commission Exhibit. But the "more knowledgeable" Hanky Panky didn't have the intelligence to search the Commission's Documents when he realized it wasn't a Commission Exhibit. That's what a
It took someone less knowledgeable to point out to Hank his error, for which, in the end and to his credit, he did apologize for.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MHfcJKB_IqU/m/NrMWsJoiAQAJ
On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 6:50:53?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 7:38:48?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote: >>> Your opinion has no value.
I've been telling them that for years. They think their opinions, comments, "reasoning", speculation and other nonsesne is more significant than the evidence.
Invited a discussion of Lifton’s reasoning ...
On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 10:42:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:32:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
What uncomfortable subjects am I avoiding?
Please, spell it out. In detail. Let's discuss.
Nope... it's impossible to "discuss" when you consistently run…
Excuses, excuses.
On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 10:39:44?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:38:46 -0800 (PST), David Drummond
<borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 6:43:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >> ...The reason it has no value is due to his proven cowardice & lying. As
I don't.
Your opinion has no value.
any lurker can quickly judge.
Ben, like many other posters here, avoids discussing the evidence...
Ben, like many other posters here, avoids discussing the evidence
and instead resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem. And spamming
the group. He says the evidence is on his side, but where the rubber
meets the road, he avoids every opportunity to discuss the evidence.
According to Bugliosi, was it an "oval" shape that was virtually conclusive evidence of the SBT? It's a simple yes or no question.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:50:48 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,676 |
